kanka-mcp

Update entity

kanka_update_entity

Partially update an existing entity in your Kanka campaign by changing only specified fields.

Instructions

Partial update (PATCH) on an existing entity. Provide only the fields you want to change. The id is the type-scoped id (e.g. character id), not entity_id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "kanka_update_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaign_id`	Yes
`entity_type`	Yes
`id`	Yes
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses it is a PATCH (partial update) and clarifies id semantics. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on permissions or error states but sufficient for a simple update.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with action and purpose. Efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description covers essential aspects: partial update, field selection, id type. Could mention response format, but not critical for a well-known operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, description adds value for 'id' (type-scoped) and 'data' (partial update). Does not describe campaign_id or entity_type, but enum for entity_type is in schema. Compensates partially.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Partial update (PATCH) on an existing entity'. Verb 'update' and resource 'entity' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_entity and delete_entity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit instruction: 'Provide only the fields you want to change.' Clarifies id is type-scoped, not entity_id. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server